Back
RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
State of Karnataka – Appellant
Versus
Sharanappa – Respondent
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. This appeal is filed by the State through Lokayukta challenging the judgment of acquittal dtd. 7/11/2014, passed by the Prl. Sessions Judge and Special Court, Koppal, in Special C.C. (P.C.) No.45/2011, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused/respondents herein for the offences punishable under Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) as well as Sec. 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the original rankings occupied by them before the Trial Court.
3. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are as under:
a) That the accused No.1 Sharanappa was a Village Accountant of Juratagi village in Gangavati Taluk. The complainant claims that the land bearing Sy.No.27 situated at Juratagi was standing in the name of Yamanamma as a minor guardian of complainant and his brother and after attaining majority they have moved an application to the Special Tahasildar, for mutating their names by deleting the name of minor guardian.
b) It is further alleged that accused is said to have demanded Rs.8, 000.00 to do official favour and in this regard the complainant has lodged a complaint.
The judgment emphasizes the requirement of material evidence and witness support to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in corruption cases.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and the evidence of demand, acceptance, and recovery must be corroborated and consistent to establish the offense unde....
In assessing cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, mere inquiries about bribe amounts do not equate to a legal demand, and evidence must be compelling to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must prove both the demand and acceptance of bribes beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is not sufficient.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the demand and acceptance of a bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court emphasize....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
